I immediately had a sickening type of a feeling, kind of a "do I really want to read this prejudicial report" maybe it was your description of the protester the "old pensioner with the hat identifying him as a Korean War Veteran "(paraphrasing), did he tell you he received a pension or is that simply a phrase your generation of journalists use in place of senior citizen? Sorta like old person I neither care for or agree with? The former NRA leader Wayne Lapiere,remember "news guy" used those terms such as Monsters and armed lunatics only to describe their actions, you know mass murder.To say I DO NOT FIND YOUR OPINION PIECE EVEN a little interesting or thought provoking is an understatement,I am much to far to the left and I am helplessly convinced that we must get get the guns away from the WACKOS & NUT JOBS and then enforce the laws we have,more lives will be saved.You Air have a rare ability to filter or block any meaningful communication with what we in the US Army used to refer to as permitting your paper to be published without a focused point!Sometimes its better to be sure you get at least one bird per stone! (You wasted your rock, trying to convey so much hatred)

"No background checks — PERIOD! Do something about the mentally ill," wails the NRA. Their patron saint, Wayne LaPierre says, "We have no national database of these lunatics." He's kidding, right? A national data base?? Even if we had one, of what use would it be without a background check to see if a gun buyer is on the list? The real reason the NRA doesn't want background checks is that, were we to run them, we'd find out that LaPierre and his paranoid-delusional minutemen are crazy as bed bugs!

Not only will the government have a hidden agenda, but will deprive the populace of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. It's absolutely amazing how good the NRA is at messaging, even when it comes to semi-automatic assault weapons and magazines that hold 30+ rounds of ammunition. Citizens must unite and rise up against an oppressive government. Of course, the only time government is good is when you recive you Medicare, Social Security benefits, or Medicaid! Common sense unfortunately has been lost in the debate.

How to overthrow tyranny.
Unite the people by spreading the message that everything the government does is driven by ill intent, that they have a hidden agenda, that they lie about what they are doing , that they want to subjugate us and take away our freedom…unite the community with the idea that they intend to oppress us and we must stick together and rise up as a people and overthrow them.

How to create tyranny.
Unite the people by spreading the message that everything the government does is driven by ill intent, that they have a hidden agenda, that they lie about what they are doing , that they want to subjugate us and take away our freedom…unite the community with the idea that they intend to oppress us and we must stick together and rise up as a people and overthrow them.

Right on! Well said. What these right wingers are doing is just another form of tyranny. The disinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda put out by Fox News, Rush, Coulter etc. was first done by Joseph Goebbels in the 30's.

I'm 69 and live in a Seattle suburb. I've owned guns all my life and I currently own 4 shotguns, 3 rifles and 2 pistols (both wheelguns). I am a hunter for deer and waterfowl. I used to be an NRA member but ceased being a member in the 90's when they started becoming too extreme for me.

What make me nervous these days is all these extreme and heavily armed rednecks that hate the government and anybody that isn't one of them. One guy in my neighborhood drives a Dodge truck with a sticker on it that says "love my country, fear my government" along with assorted other stickers, NRA, Ron Paul etc.

Seattle may be liberal but the surrounding areas are not. Just in the last two weeks there have been three incidents involving heavily armed rednecks. One guy in his 60's in Puyallup just walked down the street with an AR15 shooting up houses. The cops came and he gave up peacefully. Another also older guy near Marysville north of Seattle, rural area, shot up his neighbors car, and then fired at the cops and they killed him. Another one in Hoquiam shot a cop, didn't kill him, barricaded himself in his house, the house started to burn, he came out shooting and the cops killed him.

My son in law is a King County Sheriff. He used to say it was better than being a Seattle cop because of all the gang bangers in Seattle. But his attitude has changed. There are a lot of heavily armed folks in rural King County that hate the government and Obama. But it isn't Obama knocking on their door its a King County Sheriff.

These people are heavily armed and extremely emotional about their rights. You can see the emotion in some of the posts here. Not a good combination. These guys claim to be law abiding but probably just the laws they agree with. Some of them have all these guns "preparing for the revolution". I shoot at a local trap and skeet range and I really hear talk like that. It is a lot more common than you think.

The antigun liberals forgot and never been in a situations like Germany during World War 2, Russia, China, or Cambodia. You are slowly stripping the 2nd amendment right away from good people. Next you'll strips the 1st amendment then the lists will goes on and on. That is your aim isn't it? I am from Cambodia I live through hell in the Killing Field. We had no right or freedom. They even tell you who you should marry. Is this the life you want to live in? When the government confiscated all your weapons and can't you fight back, GENOCIDE happen. You antigun people should wake. You are sending your country toward communism.

If I could bet about your Military service, I'd bet you don't have any.
You probably didn't have the fortitude to join the Military to "serve your fellow Americans in that capacity", I don't believe you'd put your life on the line for any reason. If you're young enough I dare you to join the Military and understand what it is to voluntarily put yourself in harms way for another human being.
I'll bet you can't quote any of our United States Constitution, other than maybe a few of the blurbs bandied about by the press, like Separation of Church and State, which by the way isn't in the United States Constitution. I'll bet you don't know there is a reference to our Lord (Yeshua a.k.a Jesus) in the United States Constitution. I'll bet you think the United States of America is a Democracy. It is not. It's a Constitutional Republic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#M...

You probably don't believe in Freedom and Liberty because I don't think you have any concept as to what it is...nor do you have any inkling of an idea as to the pain and suffering that was endured and is still being endured by your fellow Americans who have served, and those that are still serving you. We have served in the Military to protect your right to write the article above. The reading and re-reading of your article gives me a sense that you sir are divided on the topic. You are zealously myopic in your last statement that Mr. LaPierre believes that Americans must "arm themselves to the teeth". That isn’t true and that kind of focus limits would ability to critically think about a complicated subject.

I don't believe it has dawned on you that if any one of the Adults in the Sandy Hook Elementary School had been armed, which means they more than likely would have know how to use their Firearm effectively...they could have intervened in mitigating the carnage.
One thing we can be sure of and that is, that anything manufactured that has any restrictions on it, can be acquired by anybody if the prospective buyer wants it badly enough, and will do whatever is required of them to acquire it.

I've never seen you report on the abuses of Law Enforcement with their firearms, or Fellow Citizens being saved by other fellow citizens that were legally armed.
I suppose that doesn't fit into your agenda, and there in lies the problem! Men's agendas!, and the monies that are, or can be associated with those agendas. You've never examined who the people are that wish to do the controlling and their psychological predisposition and agendas. One pet peeve of mine is when you write or say "the Government" like it's some righteous, magnanimous all knowing entity that will take care of us. I don't think you would or could believe that their are very evil men and woman within our governmental structure that are working in conjunction with each other to whatever end they seek. That would be too conspiratorial for you.

You better wake up and read your United States Constitution from beginning to end. It says what it means and means what it says. Also, read the Federalist Papers. They are Essays from the Founders. You don't have to be a purported Constitutional Scholar to understand them.

I immediately had a sickening type of a feeling, kind of a "do I really want to read this prejudicial report" maybe it was your description of the protester the "old pensioner with the hat identifying him as a Korean War Veteran "(paraphrasing), did he tell you he received a pension or is that simply a phrase your generation of journalists use in place of senior citizen? Sorta like old person I neither care for or agree with? The former NRA leader Wayne Lapiere,remember "news guy" used those terms such as Monsters and armed lunatics only to describe their actions, you know mass murder.To say I DO NOT FIND YOUR OPINION PIECE EVEN a little interesting or thought provoking is an understatement,I am much to far to the left and I am helplessly convinced that we must get get the guns away from the WACKOS & NUT JOBS and then enforce the laws we have,more lives will be saved.You Air have a rare ability to filter or block any meaningful communication with what we in the US Army used to refer to as permitting your paper to be published without a focused point!Sometimes its better to be sure you get at least one bird per stone! (You wasted your rock, trying to convey so much hatred)

The Mentally Unstable should have been the main agenda 30 years ago. Who is at Fault? The NRA? FBI? DOJ? BATF&E? The President? I believe they all had a part of this problem when Reagan was shot at by: John Warnock Hinckley Jr. (born May 29, 1955) attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Washington D.C., on March 30, 1981, as the culmination of an effort to impress teen actress Jodie Foster. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and has remained under institutional psychiatric care since then.

Public outcry over the verdict led to the insanity causing The Defense Reform Act of 1984 was a law passed in the wake of public outrage after John Hinckley, Jr.'s acquittal for the Reagan assassination attempt. It amended the United States federal laws governing defendants with mental diseases or defects to make it significantly more difficult to obtain a verdict of not guilty only by reason of insanity. How? Psychologist Lawrence Z. Freedman for being ineffective criticized it: "If the attacker is rational mentally, stable emotionally, and fanatic politically, he will not be deterred. Nor will an irrational, affectively disturbed individual be deterred.

Just take a look after almost 30 years that irked the hell right out of me; our Supreme Court stating The Defense Reform Act of 1984 protects all criminals standing trial. Not a problem for BHO as he has the Supreme Count Justice's stacked up for himself, but BHO would not play this card until it was a matter of public Safety to have these documents handed over to the FBI and added to the NICS. The courts under protest passed the bill for the safety of the public.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993) is an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States.
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993, and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The Act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Hinckley began purchasing weapons and practicing with them. He also began taking anti-depressants and tranquilizers. Hinckley shot a . 22 caliber Long Rifle Röhm RG-14 revolver six times at Reagan

Two things I refuse to believe in, Polls and statistics. Why? The democrats generally run the polls and the Statistics on any subject is so out weighted by the facts of those who run them. Guns Should be Banned Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden the Yes man to Obama Shotguns are a good Home Defense Gun, evidently he has never been on the Arizona/Mexico Border or the Texas/Mexico Border where there are wars going on in the desert on the Arizona and Texas side of the Border. BHO let's invite more illegal Mexicans between certain dates through Arizona. Yes send us your criminals, mentally incompetent and terrorist. Does anyone besides John Kyl and myself see that Obama despises our state of Arizona? BHO has said he will never return after the finger wagging from Governor Brewer. We do not mind, but if he changes his mind he better have his papers proving he is an American Citizen; Papers Please.

Banning firearms would only mean if you out law guns, then only outlaws would have guns. This may be a saying but it is the truth. Have you ever seen a criminal, X-Con, Mental Patient, etc read and obey the laws? No, they do not know how to read or comprehend what the laws stand for in the Gun World. No New Laws, get in there and dig out all the previous gun laws sort through them, toss the ones that have no meaning and keep everything else since 1776 that does have a meaning.

Really I do not mind debating a point to rational people who will listen and return Corrective thoughts on the subject. Facts do not lie. What burns my ass is someone who is ignorant to the facts and refuses to weight the matter out with its Pros and Cons

That is exactly the point of the universal background checks that you and your lot oppose. To keep the guns away from "felonious criminals" as you want. Look, you will probably reply some other dumb thing, but the point is that you guys are nuts, paranoid, irrational, and not the quickest on the uptake. So, I am done wasting my time here.

Yes they are you uninformed Human. Get informed before you post, and use words correctly. There are now on-line dictionaries. Look up the word idiot. I wish you luck in your quest for "Critical Thinking".

Mr. Piere’s arguments are contradictory in many instances. Before the shooting attempts at beefing up mental health were rejected by the Rt. in general as an expensive social step in medicine. Now in this instance the solution seems to be big brother and Soviet style reporting on your neighbors. The facts from looking at the raw statistics available freely from the FBI and any of the many timelines of mass shootings in various countries suggest that prior evidence of mental illness is not common to the mass shootings. It is incredible that with a democratically elected government we are encouraged to distrust government flatly. Government is inefficient and wasteful by definition. But whose definition? This ignore the success of this government and much of Western Europe for several generations. The Conservative “facts” just don’t bear that scrutiny.

The most common feature of mass shootings for the last 60 years is the use of handguns with multiple preloaded clips that contain 10 or more rounds. Assault weapons are not as commonly used as shotguns after the first choice of handguns.

The major problem with trying to regulate this issue and reduce meaningfully the number of people shot and killed is the stream of misinformation, faulty logic and flat out untrue “stuff” to quote Mr. Biden that comes from the Rt. Some from the left also but right now the Rt. is churning out the stuff at an amazing rate. It would take an idiot not to make the connections but then with cuts to education, taking logic out of the curriculum and trying to get creationism recognized as science perhaps we are creating the next generation of village idiots.

Haha Thaynie! Do you even believe what you wrote? First, the NRA isn't "the right." NRA seldom wades into any issues other than those pertaining to the first and second amendments. It supports both demoncrats and republicrats who support freedom.

Do you trust the government? Can you think of a program simpler than Socialist Security? Any competent fifth grader could calculate a percentage of a paycheck, set it aside, and return it to the victim when he reaches a PREDETERMINED age. Not the US government. Not only does the percentage keep changing, so does the age at which one can collect benefits. A few years ago a poll found that 7 out of 10 people didn't think they'd ever see a dime. Where did they find the 3 who thought they would?

I could prattle on about Prohibition, border security, the War on Drugs, etc., but why? If government can't handle a program as simple as Socialist Security, why would you expect it to be capable of solving more complicated problems? It obviously can't control violent criminals. This is why I own guns. Specifically I own type of guns that CAN control violent criminals.

You don't think recent mass shooters are mental cases? Really? Open your eyes. Lanza, Loughner, the Columbine shooters, the Virginia Tech shooter, and the Aurora shooter were all mental cases. Aren't these the very cases we're trying to pass knee-jerk laws over? Meanwhile we ignore the fact that all the above mentioned nutjobs killed very few people in comparison with all those murdered by street thugs over the same period of time. Why is that? My guess is that people get "uncomfortable" when we really dig deep and start looking at WHO is actually committing most of the mayhem. If all their pictures were posted at once there might be an outcry to do something about it.

The success of Western Europe, haha! The US is now charging toward bankruptcy as fast as Europe. Good thing you have Germany to bail everyone out. Oh wait, Germany doesn't quite have enough to bail everyone out, does it? But maybe a few along the way before the crash...

Are you surprised? The votes were never there. No one is coming to take your guns away. You will have the right to own and carry weapons that kill dozens of folks in less than a minute. And because you can, you make it that much easier for criminals to do the same.

AND you can exercise your free speech and continue to threaten your own country as your comment illustrates. A bit frightening that.
Joined any terrorist groups lately?

"Congress-critters are sorely afraid of their constituents!" "Your ignorance might get you hurt" You CONTINUE to level the threat that those who don't kowtow to your warped belief system may get shot.
As such, Gabby's blood (and others) is ON YOUR HANDS.
YOU encourage people to think that if they EVER GET THE NOTION THAT GOVERNMENT IS TOO "TYRANNICAL" THAT THEY CAN GO "TAKE BACK THEIR COUNTRY" by shooting someone- and that THAT THIS NOTION IS SOMEWHERE ENSHRINED IN CONSTITUTION???!
YOU ARE LARGE PART OF PROBLEM.
I don't know if you simply lack the mental acuity to understand this or think that encourage killing of innocent people IS a good thing.

I don't know if you simply lack the mental acuity to understand the language of metaphor, or you're just looking for ways to be offended.

Liberal Congress-critters are afraid of their constituents because they must go back to their districts and be held to account for their votes, (this is how our American system works in a republic, and is why the anti-2nd Amendment votes were never there for the Senate democrats).

As I patiently explained before, by "definition", Adam Lanza did not use an assault weapon at Sandy Hook. . .

/Oh, and it's sure fun to watch Demagogy backfire on the Democrats in the U.S. Senate!

Um..
Perhaps I owe you an apology. When you spoke of "people might get hurt" and "congressman afraid of constituents" by opposing gun advocates- I took you literally.
Since I had just pointed out how those who support idea that Constitution supports "insurrection against tyranny" were promoting gun violence, your "metaphors"- were perhaps misinterpreted.

I actually probably cut you WAY too much slack.
If you wish to not promote shootings, please do not speak of "rising up against tyrannical government" and please realize that implications of statements as "anti-2nd Amendment Congress-critters are sorely afraid of their constituents!" and " you might get hurt" may be different than you intend.

I believe that those who promote ridiculous notion that 2nd amendment/B of R give credence to idea that people should "rise up" against their own government for alleged "tyranny"-
do a great disservice to their country, are about as unpatriotic as you can get,and promote violence.

When in the course of human events has a people risen against their own government for an allegation?
The Bill of Rights is indeed a ridiculous notion to those who love Mommy-government. However, it's axiomatic; in the final analysis government is force, and must be feared and controlled accordingly.
Most people are blissfully ignorant that the Bill of Rights was created to limit government power over the people.
/History majors, pay attention.

B Of R established rights of individuals not to infringed by government- yes.
People in Massachusetts rose up against alleged tyranny of taxation and other grievances in Shay’s Rebellion. A militia in the order spoken of in 2nd amendment was raised to put it down.
People in Pennsylvania (I believe) rose up against excessive taxation in Whiskey Rebellion. Militias from several different states were organized to put that down.
In both cases this was just what was envisioned in constitution/ 2nd amendment.
Civil War could be an example of such an “insurgence”, yes?

I don't believe that "we" had much of a "standing Army" back at that time, did we?
Therefore "well-regulated" militias would have been critically important.

Yes at the time of "uprisings" the constitution was not ratified, but militias were raised in the same way to quell uprising as was LATER specified in constitution.
According to John Ferling in "Adams vs. Jefferson",Shay's Rebellion was what ultimately caused Washington to "sign on to attend Constitutional Convention".

"Well-regulated" militias were critically important as you say. .... But 'militia' in the meaning of the 2nd amendment pre-dates the United States. In that era, well-regulated was—regulated by whom?—there was no government in the era when militias were first called upon.

Militia pre-dates the formation of the federal government, which was a creation of these united states. The founders didn't mean 'militia' was a federal concept when there was no federal government.

Most people forget that we citizens have legal authority to protect our communities in the absence of first responders, military or other agencies. This structure is in place to keep the lid on until they arrive.

LW, you're disappointing me as far as what FF's meant by well-regulated. This according to historians, in time of FF's, meant "well-trained" or "well-disciplined".
2nd amendment specified that because a "well-trained" militia was necessary to protect our butts in times of need, people's rights to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The founders spoke of militia in exactly same context before and after Constitution was ratified.

I don't disagree that well-regulated means a well practiced militia. ... but militias pre-dated the federal government.

And militia within the meaning of the 2nd amendment also pre-dates organized police forces. Once, there were no cops.

Even today, militias are summoned to canvas large areas of land for a lost child when police assets can't be found to do it. Also, think of first-aid preparedness (some militias are medically trained for rescue) and other general preparedness paradigms.

I'm not getting why you think FF's thought of militias any different after Constitution than before. Militias were prevalent right up to Civil war. They were in large part what"kept the peace" at that time. And is why in constitution specified: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: “.. to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel invasions."
I believe in one of Washington's last letters ( to Hamilton) he spoke of his great concern that U.S. had no effective standing Army. I think it wasn't until War of 1812, that we as a country began to see that just having militias wasn't going to be enough.

You've again swerved into something... "Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions..."

Congress is granted this power—by whom? We The People grant this power.

The militia was the supreme authority which was within the people prior to the Feds, police and Guard. Even today, there is still no authority superior to We The People—which is why the Senate democrats could not muster their so-called "assault" weapon votes in the Senate; even employing demagogy did not help them because at the end of the day they are beholden to the people.

We elect Congress. Once elected, FF's authorized Congress to "use" militia for executing laws, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.
FF's did not authorize militias to "rise up" against their own government should they think it become too "tyrannical. Why would FF's sew the seeds of their own country's demise? Who gets to decide when gov is too "tyrannical"? No such sentiment is enshrined in Constitution/B of R.

In relation to today? Obviously militia's do not play the role they did back then. FF's knew that not everyone who owned a gun would be in militia anyhow. So yes they granted right to own and bear arms- to everyone.
But I take great issue with this right having anything to do with "tyranny". That's an absurd grandiose pipe dream- And a dangerous one at that. FF's were wiser than that.
Yes, I know about Madison's opinions. Apparently he didn't get everything he wanted.
Lot's of compromise occurred.

You are operating from a confirmation bias (I really, really like my first, incorrect ideas on government). ... But you are wrong.

The answer to everyone of your questions is, 'We The People'.

The Senate democrat's utter and embarrassing failure against the non-issue of so-called 'assault' weapons (Sandy Hook had nothing to do with 'assault' weapons) seems to have taught you nothing. On the one hand you say, "We elect Congress...Once elected..." But on the other hand, you forget that the Congress is still beholden to the people, even after they get to Washington.

As to who "decides" regarding tyranny, you clumsily ask? The answer is found in the Declaration of Independence, —together with its subservient document the U.S. Constitution.

History majors and attorney "wannabes", pay attention:
The Declaration of Independence isn't legal document and can't be cited as precedent or as being binding in court. Purpose of Declaration was to provide the moral grounds for dissolving legal ties between us and England; mostly as it related to existing English law.
Again constitution, elected by "We the people" was empowered Congress by FF's in constitution: to "use" militia for "suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions".
As for current weapons ban argument- congratulations- glad you think "your side won". It should have come as a surprise to NO ONE. The votes, unfortunately were NEVER THERE. As president intimated, the issue "deserved a vote".
Hey, LW, after further study about the debate concerning 2nd amend by FF's, I would have to admit that they weree MUCH more concerned about tyranny than I have been giving them in my arguments. Not that I am capable of ever being wrong about anything, but I guess I should tone my arguments down in this regard a bit.
My apologies.

The Declaration of Independence is the superior instrument to the Constitution in spite of your protests to the contrary. You've concurred this with your own words.

Your confirmation bias continues to show. In addition, the "can't-be-cited-as-precedent" statement you make is very clumsy, as the Declaration of Independence was indeed the precedent for escaping the legal tyranny of the English Lord.

The Declaration was a legal and military instrument.

By the way, after Sandy Hook you are the one who should be surprised that the democrat votes weren't there for a ban. Most Americans were not surprised because most Americans know that Sandy Hook had nothing to do with so-called 'assault' weapons. (Had The Economist done their homework they too would have known that, but still insisted on putting the image of a woman showing an automatic weapon in their article) ... Leftists are so predictable.

/Listen up those of common sense
Legality might be contested in an English court in deciding whether we had right to break with England.
Should you choose To "throw Off" our present government, I assume with all those guns you've been stockpiling, you would not receive much sympathy in American courtroom.
If the people DID "rise up" and overthrow our government, providing then that our government wasn't able to defeat such an insurrection with the help of "We the People"- as was intent of B of R and constitution; then constitution would be irrelevant and surely another one would be drawn up to suit whims of 'insurrectors.

I wasn't surprised that votes weren't there- they never were- you gun hoarders were paranoid from the get go.

What words did I "put in your mouth"? Only ones I can see would be "'throw off' present government" which is direct quote from Declaration of Independence, in making point that referencing D of I would not be a viable defense in an American court room.

"all those guns you've been stockpiling"
"you gun hoarders were paranoid from the get go" ad infinitum...

I don't like to read your murmurings; it seems to confirm that you're only flailing around in the water.

When did the patriots of the American Revolution ever condescend to go inside a courtroom of the English Crown? Only after having reached a breaking point was the Declaration of Independence from immoral tyranny issued to the King.

It seems that we American people currently have a system in place to keep representatives in check quite nicely. The Senate democrats proved how their immoral actions were kept in check by the knowledge of what would await them at the ballot box; their numbers in the Senate could very well have been thinned out by voting on a so-called 'assault' weapons ban—that would have solved nothing, nor prevented Sandy Hook.

English Court? I was just trying to point out that Constitution is the founding document of import in AMERICAN court (D of I; not so much)
Didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities as far as them there murmurings.
Glad to see you're confident in our American system.
Later

Just to be clear:
I don’t BELIEVE Declaration is legal document so as to be used as precedent in court. Therefore if you get a notion to take your weapons and attempt to exercise your right “to alter or to abolish“ our government, tyranny and all, D of I will not help you in a court of law.
Matter of fact , the relevant document, Constitution and 2nd Amendment is designed to organize “we the people “ against exactly these efforts.
You may have a point with the "nature's God" thing, although before their were "human" laws, people may have had different ideas as what was considered their rights. Some may have enjoyed exercising their right to steal from others, perhaps kill-
because they could.

I guess I was being way too subtle when I mentioned the English court in regards to your comment, “to alter or to abolish“ English tyrannies, because, in your line of thinking the American colonists would have been better to have first provided a legal argument in a court before taking up arms.

Many don't believe that the Declaration was a legal precedent for doing this. But most people are unaware that it is the right of the people “to alter or to abolish“ —and this important right was not given by government, neither British or American, but by God (cf. Declaration of Independence).

You are right that the Constitution and 2nd Amendment are designed to protect against "exactly these efforts" —but the Constitution gets it authority from the Declaration, and is therefore subordinate to it.

The Second Amendment is precisely originated from the Declaration.

History proved quite colorfully that the Declaration was indeed a legal and military instrument and a precedent for the American colonists to put off British tyranny.

Lest I be accused of talking about Lone Wolf without his knowledge, repeat of post from conversation below:
Misrepresenting FF’s? I am looking at the relevant document- The Constitution. Do you read what it says or do you imagine what you think it should say and choose to make things up?
2nd amend in my constitution says “(Because) of need for a (disciplined, trained) militia (in order that they called upon to protect our country in time of need), the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed”.
Apparently Lone Wolfe’s copy also reads: “This Amendment is penned and intended for the use of citizens to overthrow a dictatorial government bent upon usurping the freedoms that our Constitution protects.”
Now I guess LW can write his own constitution if he desires (sort of like Jefferson wrote his own bible), because he obviously has no respect for the one FF’s wrote. As far as 2nd amendment, his B of R seems exactly opposite of what was written.
If citizenry did decide to rise up and overthrow our constitutional government, then certainly PRESENT CONSTITUTION WOULD NO LONGER BE RELEVANT. At that point the over-throwers would undoubtedly write a NEW constitution as LW does now to suit his whims.
FF’s wrote in constitution and 2nd amendment the mechanisms of PUTTING DOWN the uprising to which he refers. How do I know this? Because my constitution reads: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: “.. to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel invasions."
This is exactly AS WASHINGTON DID IN WHISKEY REBELLION AND AS WAS DONE JUST BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN CASE OF SHAY”S REBELLION.
Washington was well aware of these issues going into CC. He was a bit shaken by what had occurred in Massachusetts (Shay’s rebellion).
Jefferson's views are fairly irrelevant because he chose not to attend CC.
LW’s constitution does nothing but promote the arrogant misrepresentation that we should all arm ourselves to the teeth in case we get urge to overthrow our government.
THIS IS AS ANTIPATRIOTIC AS IT GETS.
I suggest LW should go try living in a lawless country for a while- Lots of "Freedom" there.
Maybe he can bring his guns and become a warlord- good luck to him.

The NRA complains about the mental health system. Lexington whines about the NRA's whining. We should be discussing neither mental health nor new gun restrictions on law abiding citizens. Sure, the disturbed people who killed at Columbine, Aurora, Virgina Tech, and Sandyhook were all known risks. I've yet to hear of a law to prevent this type of case. However, the number of murders these sickos perpetrated is TINY in the face of the overall number of murders every year. Chicago is a prime example. What a liberal utopia of strict gun control, extreme regulation of everything, and massive taxation. It's working so well that naturally we should emulate Chicago on a national level...

Chicago has already seen more than 60 murders in 2013. Why do we never have discussions about WHO is committing so much murder? Why aren't we discussing the prior felony offenses of those who are caught murdering? That wouldn't be very convenient would it? Why are people who have already committed two or more violent felonies walking the streets before they are 50 years old? Why is the sentence range 2-6 years for raping a 12 year old in Colorado? What, you don't think guys who rape a little kid are going to do it again when they get out? Our government isn't serious about protecting the public from crime because the public doesn't demand it.

Some say there isn't enough room in prison. Maybe if we admitted our loss in the War on Drugs and stopped locking people up for weed there would be extra beds for violent felons. Maybe if we started executing those who use guns in the commission of felonies there would be more room in prison. Why not limit the appeals and execute anyone who injures or kills another person with a gun during the commission of another crime (like robbery) when the crime is captured on video and there is other additional evidence of guilt? How many times are thugs captured on video murdering convenience store clerks? How about executing any man whose DNA is found inside a rape victim under 13? Is there some reason to feed, clothe, and shelter these sociopaths for decades and then release them to do it again? What am I missing here? Instead of ignoring the constitution and infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens how about restricting violent felons in a more effective manner?

Speaking as a lifelong Chicagoan, I want to chop down this "Chicago would be the safest place because of its gun laws" canard ONCE AND FOR ALL:

CHICAGO does indeed have its strict gun laws. However, the suburban areas DO NOT. There are indeed places where you can literally cross the street into a neighboring suburb and buy a gun from a shop less than 200 feet from the border of Chicago. Or, if you want to take the more "cosmopolitan route", you can simply cross the border into Indiana and do the same. One of the newspapers- I believe it was the SunTimes- did an investigative piece several years ago when this gun law was being debated and found that, at the time, roughly 45% of the guns recovered from crime scenes could be traced to roughly ten stores in an immediate suburb or from Indiana.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Back when the legal drinking age was 19 in Wisconsin but 21 in Illinois, there was a tremendous number of cross-border DUI incidents because of the fact that you could simply cross an imaginary line on a map and- VOILA! You're Legal!. When the drinking age was standardized across the states, and combined with strict penalties and enforcement, there was a very noticeable drop in DUIs. Perhaps this is the corollary for guns....

My main issue is that while, yes, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution, they should indeed be "well-regulated".

Yes, it is a right- but all rights indeed have limits, and one only needs to back up one amendment to see this. Free speech? Yes- but you can't scream FIRE in a theater. Freedom of Religion? Yes- but not of religious practices, so you can't exactly get away with tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease your God. Freedom of the press? Yes- but there are limits to what they can say.

Every civilized society, even in the most libertarian context, walks a balance between securing the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective whole. You want a gun? Fine- but nothing with high capacity ammunition clips, armor-piercing rounds, etc. There is no need for someone to be able to purchase a .50cal rifle who's only justification is that "I want it and can afford it". You want a gun? Fine- but you're going to have to pass a background check, pass a required certification course, and carry a liability insurance policy for it.

I do own several shotguns as I enjoy both skeet/trap as well as hunting pheasant. I also will take the occasonal jaunt to the local indoor range to 'punch holes in paper'. But its the guys who walk in with an AR-15 fully kitted out, taking their "Red Dawn" fantasies a little too serious, that concern me. There is a vast difference between being a Second Amendment defender, and a Second Amendment Advocate.

Please spare us the shrill, fear-mongering leap to the 'requirement for the bill of rights' angle when one proposes sensible requirements for gun ownership. As I stated earlier, yes, you have the right to own a gun- but all rights do indeed have limits to a degree. I have thr right to travel freely throughout this country, but if I want to do this via car, I have to meet certain requirements- licensing, insurance, etc.

As to your San Francisco analogy, what do you consider the greater threat- a grown man, dressed as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, parading in the Castro District while singing "We're Off To See The Wizard".... or someone in head-to-toe camo, a tactical vest with numerous loaded clips, armed with an AR-15, a Sig in a tactical holser strapped to his thigh, talking about how "I'm a true patriot and will use my guns to overthrow tyranny where I see it".

When did liability insurance become a requirement for the Bill of Rights?

Driving is a privilege, it is not a right; hence the insurance requirement. In your world, liability insurance should come with free speech.

I don't consider either one a threat; the man dressed as Dorothy, nor the man dressed in camo practicing free speech. Neither has broken any law. It's the felonious criminals in your neighborhood that should concern you.

/By the way, I think the U.S. should pull out of Chicago. It's too dangerous in that free-fire zone.

Criminals ignore the law. We already have gun control laws, and every criminal action demands more gun control. That's not how you stop criminals. Instead you find yourself sacrificing freedom for the actions of the mentally insane.

I'm not advocating anarchy. You assume that criminals are just going to obey the law. Here's an example of a few of the laws Adam Lanza broke before he going into that school:

Grand larceny
Murder (his mom)
Assault with a deadly weapon
Discharging a firearm
Committing a felony with a firearm
Possession of a stolen gun (multiple)
Possession of a loaded firearm
Possession of a gun in a school zone
Criminal trespass in a school zone
Vehicle theft

This may have been the case, but what was 'well-regulated' about that? The fact that nobody felt a need at that time to debate the point does not mean it lacked significance, nor should not be considered now; much of the Constitution was written in very broad language that has since been interpreted in far more specific terms, as need and circumstance allowed.

Every able bodied adult male in the late 1700s included mainly farmers, most of whom were white, Christian, of English descent, and who knew their neighbors. (This broad group also included felons, by the way, no slaves and no women.) Very few had cannons, most had weapons very inefficient for mass slaughter. It's a very different world today, and folly to leave 'well-regulated' unconsidered now, just because most people were comfortable then with how things were working out.

Alright Uqhum, why don't you explain how the militia was "well-regulated" at the time? While you're at it please explain what part of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" you don't understand. Have you missed the entire concept behind the Bill of Rights? Those first rights were ALL about the rights of the people. Do you loathe freedom? Do you respect private property? If you're not "comfortable" with keeping and bearing arms then by all means I respect your right not to. But you WILL respect my right to do so. It's funny how those who wish to disarm law abiding people never attempt to do so personally. They always send other people with guns to do their dirty work.

I believe you must firmly believe in the right of Americans to ingest copious amounts of hallucinogens as well- Because you must be on them to believe that was what 2nd amendment was penned for.
Where in constitution or B of R does it make any such reference. Answer.? Nowhere. It is written entirely in your head- because it certainly is not in that document.
Still in America- you have right to be as deluded as you choose to be as long as you don’t violate the rights of others in the process. Hopefully you haven’t done a lot of that- other than encouraging folks to purchase lots of weapons for apparent purpose of War with our own country- Good luck with that.
God bless.
/It’s hard getting folks to acknowledge facts- when all they seem to ever have known is bias.

Fred, you're misrepresenting the Founding Fathers. Are you aware of the political climate in this nation when the Constitution was written? Have you studied any of the letters and other documents written by these great men? This nation was formed through force of arms. Our forefathers realized and acknowledged that the government that feared its citizens would be responsible and the citizens who feared their government were living under tyranny.

I'm not suggesting an armed revolution. I believe the best uses for our right to keep and bear arms are self defense, hunting, sport shooting, and hopefully never to engage in an insurrection or civil war. Half a million Americans died the first time. God only knows the price if it ever happens again. I don't think Lonewolf is suggesting an armed uprising either.

1) My point, which you seemed to have missed, is that there never was a well-regulated militia (aside from the states' National Guards). You want to preserve only half of the 2nd Amendment; I want it all. If you want to call yourself a militia, I want to know that you are well-regulated. (And nowhere does 'self-regulation' result in serious oversight.)

2) I've never said that I want to take away your guns. (Yep, I do want to prevent people from owning weapons of mass murder, just as I want to keep nukes away from ordinary citizens.) I do, however, want authorities to have at least as much information about whomever has firearms as they know about somebody driving a car. And I want externalities to be accounted for. With autos, that is done via mandatory insurance requirements.

That was an interesting read, thank you. I haven't missed your points at all. Neither the explicit nor the implied ones.

First, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard. They weren't even in existence at the time. Second, the amendment does not require you to be militia but rather points out that a militia is helpful. Some may or may not find that ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Again, what part of "people" are you not understanding? They knew how to write "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" if that's what they had intended. But they didn't. They specifically accorded this right to the "people". It's noteworthy that this right was number two on their agenda right behind the first amendment which also pertains to, wait for it, the people.

The bottom line is that you aren't comfortable with law abiding citizens bearing arms. So you parse words in an attempt to negate one of the very first rights guaranteed by our constitution. This is settled law per the article you cited. Heller confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Finally, since you have no constitutional standing to disarm people, you seek to do it through expensive requirements like insurance. I've fired weapons three times in legal defense of self and property and not once have I been sued for property damage. Maybe that's because I hit my intended targets with each shot but there is still the right of litigation. The creeps who violated my neighbor's residence were driving a vehicle belonging to the parents of a 15 year old that was along for the crime. Those owners could have sued me for the two destroyed tires but they didn't. Are we going to require mandatory insurance for owners of hammers, power tools, swimming pools, and soccer balls? Tens of thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths involving these things happen annually. Or do you simply want to increase the cost of gun ownership in an effort to reduce the number of gun owners and thereby their political clout so that eventually your ban can be easily passed?

I have to ask, do you own guns? Are you like Mark Kelly who wants to ban everyone else from owning an AR15 but thinks it's ok for him to own one? Or are you like David Gregory and Barak who send their kids to schools with armed security while claiming that the idea of effective armed security at schools is ridiculous? Do you have a personal armed security detail like Bloomberg and Rosie O'donnell? It's always interesting to see how the rich, liberal elites are protected by guns but aren't interested in the average citizen having that same security that training and gun ownership brings.

FYI, I support the entire constitution. While I don't like abortion and I can't find in the constitution where it's guaranteed I still don't think the government needs to be involved in that. It's all about liberty and respecting the rights of others. This used to be a popular concept.

You must not be aware that Americans won their independence from England by force of arms.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that after outlining freedom of religion, speech, and press in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

The Bill of Rights—where our 2nd Amendment is found—were specifically penned to limit the power of government.

Misrepresenting FF’s? I am looking at the relative document- The Constitution. Do you read what it says or do you imagine what you think it should say and choose to make things up?
2nd amend in my constitution says “(Because) of need for a (disciplined, trained) militia (in order that they called upon to protect our country in time of need), the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed”.

Apparently Lone Wolfe’s copy also reads: “This Amendment is penned and intended for the use of citizens to overthrow a dictatorial government bent upon usurping the freedoms that our Constitution protects.”
Now I guess LW can write his own constitution if he desires (sort of like Jefferson wrote his own bible), because he obviously has no respect for the one FF’s wrote. As far as 2nd amendment, his B of R seems exactly opposite of what was written.
If citizenry did decide to rise up and overthrow our constitutional government, then certainly PRESENT CONSTITUTION WOULD NO LONGER BE RELEVANT. At that point the over throwers would undoubtedly write a NEW constitution as LW does now to suit his whims.

FF’s wrote in constitution and 2nd amendment the mechanisms of PUTTING DOWN the uprising to which he refers. How do I know this? Because my constitution reads: “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: “.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
This was exactly AS WASHINGTON DID IN WHISKEY REBELLION AND AS WAS DONE JUST BEFORE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN CASE OF SHAY”S REBELLION.

Washington was well aware of these issues going into CC. He was a bit shaken by what had occurred in Massachusetts (Shay’s rebellion).
Jefferson's views are fairly irrelevant because he chose not to attend CC.

LW’s constitution does nothing but promote the arrogant misrepresentation that we should all arm ourselves to the teeth in case we get urge to overthrow our government.
THIS IS AS ANTIPATRIOTIC AS IT GETS.
I suggest LW should go try living in a lawless country for a while- Lots of "Freedom" there.
Maybe he can bring his guns and become a warlord- good luck to him.

Whoa! Time out Fred. Do you think the father's vocabulary included "because, disciplined, trained?"
If so you might wonder why they chose not to use those words. Their commentary about a well regulated militia is wonderful but their choice of the word "people" couldn't be more clear. Neither could it be more clear that the first, third, fourth, fifth, etc. amendments are also individual rights. Why do you think that the second amendment, placed right between these other amendments guaranteeing individual rights doesn't pertain to individuals? It's breathtaking that 4 out of 5 Supreme court justices also had confusion about this. Folks, it's the Bill of Rights! These are individual rights!

I thought by now you may have been among the few who agree with vast majority of historians as to the meaning of the word "well-regulated". This word meant "well-disciplined" or "well trained"; in the same manner as soldiers were often called "regulars.
"because" simply makes the sentence seem less run-on (as in one sentence, not two); it doesn't change the meaning.
Don't believe I made any disclaimer about "individual rights". Founders likely reckoned that not everyone who owned a gun would be in militia.
Any other issues I can clear up for you?

Fred, maybe I did misunderstand you. I thought it was clear that the second amendment did not require the "people" who chose to bear arms to be in the militia. But I thought you disagreed on that point. What do you think about the fact that the vast majority of murderers in this country are career criminals who are under 50 and on parole, probation, or otherwise roaming the streets in spite of already having multiple violent felonies on their record? I want people who have been proven beyond any doubt (video or DNA or both) to have used guns in a criminal action where people were hurt or killed to be executed. Would you support that? How much safer would our streets be if we got serious about frequent flier criminals?

How to overthrow tyranny.
Unite the people by spreading the message that everything the government does is driven by ill intent, that they have a hidden agenda, that they lie about what they are doing , that they want to subjugate us and take away our freedom…unite the community with the idea that they intend to oppress us and we must stick together and rise up as a people and overthrow them.

How to create tyranny.
Unite the people by spreading the message that everything the government does is driven by ill intent, that they have a hidden agenda, that they lie about what they are doing , that they want to subjugate us and take away our freedom…unite the community with the idea that they intend to oppress us and we must stick together and rise up as a people and overthrow them.

"...that they lie about what they are doing..." You're correct; indeed no one can name one thing the Øbama administration promised that it kept. All of the lies told by the current government can be neatly encapsulated in Øbamacare.

Government is like a fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

To be useful, government must be strictly controlled for safety against its getting out of hand and doing great harm.

Throughout generations people have considered this reality to be one of history's most important lessons for Free men.

No matter how sophisticated and accurate the background checking (including mental health evaluation) is, it is far from enough. No one would have claimed that Adam Lanza's mom could not pass the background checking because she had a seemingly secluded son--imagine what a violation that would be. So Adam Lanza would have still got access to those semi auto rifles because his mom was deemed "qualified" to own them. And the tragedies simply repeat themselves.